Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Dehradun vs Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant.

The first bail application BA1 No.142 of 2024 was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

04.03.2024 after dealing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused in great detail. Subsequent thereto, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court from where he sought liberty to move another bail application before this Court. Accordingly, he moved BA2 No.204 of 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated

17.09.2024.

4. The fresh grounds as argued by learned counsel for the applicant before this Court are that 1 accused is lying in custody for almost 13 months; co-accused-Heena Thapa approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 28.08.2024 has stayed all the proceedings arising out from the charge-sheet; another co-accused Rajendra Singh Rawat who was arrested on the same day; has already been granted bail by this Court by order dated

23.08.2024; charge-sheet in this case was filed way back in December, 2023. Charge-sheet named as many as 16 accused out of which five individuals have been granted bail by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that all the grounds taken by the accused in the present bail application have already been dealt with and discussed in great detail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the first bail application (BA1 No.142 of 2024). It is also argued that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkyayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 is not applicable in the present case.

6. Learned counsel respondent-CBI argued that in so far as the fact of ailment of applicant is concerned, Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court has already issued directions on 22.01.2025 to the jail authorities to provide all sort of medical facilities to the applicant as and when required. He also stated that the applicant has main role in connection of the crime and if he is released on bail there are strong chances of tempering with the evidence.

7. The allegation against the applicant is the registration of sale deed dated 18.05.2010 at the Sub- Registrar Office in which the applicant entered into conspiracy with employees Mahavir Singh and Yogesh 2 Tyagi by impersonating actual owners Sanjay (the Complainant) and Ajay (already dead) and other co- accused persons. The details of payment/sale consideration mentioned in the forged sale-deed were also found false as the bank has denied having issued the mentioned demand draft. It is also one of the glaring facts that the legal heirs of late Gang Bahadur had already sold the property in-question in the year 1983.

8. In so far as the argument that the trial has been stayed by the Apex Court in respect of main accused-Heena Thapa, it needs to be mentioned that Ms. Heena Thapa herself went to the Apex court, where it was stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that charge-sheet has already been filed against sixteen persons including her and if any order is passed it would affect them adversely. Hence, it would be in the fitness of things to implead all the other accused and the complainant as party respondent in the SLP. The Hon’ble Apex Court directed the petitioner in the SLP to implead all the accused persons charge-sheeted to be made party respondent. This applicant is also one of respondents. But instead of making an application there for vacating the order, he is in this third bail application. Accordingly, it can safely be inferred that the trial got stayed by the co-accused herself just to facilitate applicant to obtain bail from this Court, this is nothing but to deviate the things.

9. The other arguments raised on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused-Rajendra Singh Rawat who was arrested on the same day has been granted bail by this Court on 20.08.2024, merits rejection for the simple reason that the said co-accused Rajendra Singh Rawat was simply a witness to the alleged sale deed executed by the applicant along with other co-accused, so the 3 applicant cannot claim any parity with the said co- accused.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case has relied upon the following authorities: (i) Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 (ii) UOI vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 (iii) Sheila Sebastain vs. R Jawaharaj & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 581 (iv) Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751

11. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. The bail application moved by the applicant was rejected on merits by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the first bail application.

12. The cases relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable for the reason that in those cases the trial had been stayed in a different proceedings whereas in the present case, the co-accused herself had gone to the Apex Court and got the matter stayed. So the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from those cited by learned counsel for the applicant. Applicant, who is respondent in SLP can move an application there for vacating the stay order dated 28.08.2024.

13. Having through circumstances of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that from over-all analysis of the facts it transpires that under a strategy the proceeding are got stayed by the co-accused Heena Thapa to facilitate the applicant to obtain bail on this ground. This appears to be a smart move by the applicant as third bail application and the SLP both, have been filed by one and the same Advocate 4 Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani. The grounds which the learned counsel for the applicant is emphatically argued have already been discussed in the first bail rejection order. No new grounds are made out in his favour.

14. This Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the third bail application is rejected.

15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

08.07.2025 5